So how is globalization of capitalism good for the world?

[Syterion]

I just don't get it. I don't see how a system literally based on greed can be expected to have the interests of others at heart. I don't see how it can help the developing world at all, when in the interests of profits they actually have an incentive to pay amounts that provide no increase in quality of life.

I hear things like capitalism allows for the greatest innovation which increases quality of life for all. It may lead to the greatest innovation, but I don't see it benefiting anyone significantly beyond those who already have power, money, and quality of life. As far as I can tell, all globalization allows is lower priced goods for the rich, as well as allowing international corporations to control the economies of developing nations. Local business/vendors can't compete with these corporations, and they lose all autonomy.

Can someone explain? I don't understand.

 

[gugalpm]

Capitalism sucks but there's not a better system available right now. Globalization is good because it allows for cheaper goods and that improves the quality of life of more people.

 

[Agarwaen]

The problem is that isolation too have nasty effects on the poor economies, so the answer is not to be integrated in the larger capitalist economy or not, but how you do the integration.

The conventional liberal answer to your question would be on the lines of comparative advantages and the like, that although some nations profit more from globalization than others, all benefit. That if the relative gains are not so great, the absolute gains would be the best possible.

 

[amadeus]

I don't see how a system literally based on greed can be expected to have the interests of others at heart.

Which countries practice a system not based on greed?

 

[Syterion]

Which countries practice a system not based on greed?

I don't know. Are you saying because it's prevalent it's better? I think some countries have systems in place that at least have more balanced interests, that regulate businesses more appropriately than others, and allow for more equal opportunity and social mobility. But on a global scale this isn't the case at all.

 

[lovett]

This question is nothing to do with globalization frankly. Your scepticism is about capitalism. You think it only benefits the rich and powerful. Obviously people who support capitalism assert the opposite and thus assert that the spread of capitalism is good for the world.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Is it unrestricted globalization? The basic idea of globalization, that of companies being able to connect multiple international markets to create global economies of scale and engage in free trade isn't bad in and of itself.

 

[Shekwan]

Well, as has already been mentioned, the theory of comparative advantage states that whilst some gain more than others ultimately everyone gains to some degree. The increases in wealth some countries have seen have not really translated into alleviating poverty or income inequality though.

 

[Ecofarm]

System based on greed?

You will never understand others if you demonize them. Like you, they support a system that they believe will improve standards of living the most for the most people.


EDIT: Nice avatar, amadeus.

 

[amadeus]

I don't know. Are you saying because it's prevalent it's better?

I'm asking because I want to know if you think a society not based on greed is possible.

I think some countries have systems in place that at least have more balanced interests, that regulate businesses more appropriately than others, and allow for more equal opportunity and social mobility. But on a global scale this isn't the case at all.

Naturally. If Vietnam said tomorrow that the minimum wage was going to match that (in purchasing power) of the U.S., EU, or Japan, how many businesses would invest in Vietnam? And how many more would leave for Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines?

How much capital would Vietnam have available to start its own factories, manufacture goods, and then expect to distribute them all while paying these wages?

And who would buy those goods? If other, more competitively priced-goods are available for sale, people are going to buy them. That means the factory is going to go out of business quite swiftly, and leave those poor people earning $0.00/hr, not $0.50/hr and most certainly not $7.25/hr.

 

[El_Machinae]

Globalization increases your customer base for whatever service you want to sell. We have seen that it will leave some people behind, though. These people cannot produce sufficiently to justify the cost of trade. Globalization is decent, but not sufficient.

 

[Newbunkle]

System based on greed?

You will never understand others if you demonize them. Like you, they support a system that they believe will improve standards of living the most for the most people.

Exactly. Its more to do with the ability to trade freely and for two or more people to come to mutually agreeable arrangements. Sure, some people abuse it, but its not "based" on greed. No more than any other system anyway.

 

[Agarwaen]

Globalization correlates with increased inequality between countries and within the societies. But as we can see with the rise of China and others, it is not necessarily only the rich becoming ever richer and the poor ever poorer, There can be shifts within the system.

 

[Ecofarm]

Everything coorelates with that (more socialism, less dictatorships, richer China, El Nino, etc) it has been the over-arching trend for decades if not forever.

Could you blame something that has always happened on one thing, just because the problem coorelates with everything?


Our development efforts and Millenium Goals have been a fail boat, for many many reasons. Some of our development "aid" hurts local markets and infrastructure more than it solves problems, corruption... to blame our development failures on global capitalism is nothing more then partisan propaganda based on a lame coorelation.


I've said for a long time... There is only one way to end global poverty: rich and educated people must move to the developing world en masse and make those problems their own. The Neo-Exodus. Short of that, we are just stroking our conscience.

 

[sysyphus]

There are many problems associated with globalisation, but I believe that in the long term it is of benefit to everyone.

Some don't like western corporations going into developing countries and exploiting cheap labour, but in the end they bring better jobs with better pay and better conditions, even if they are only incremental, it's still the most stable path to improving human development worldwide.

Yes, very rich people benefit from it, but in the end many of the world's poor are also growing their empowerment, which in turn improves stability in those countries, and thus for the best of the world as a whole.

 

[Syterion]

System based on greed?

You will never understand others if you demonize them. Like you, they support a system that they believe will improve standards of living the most for the most people.

I honestly didn't think that was an insult. I thought it was accepted by most capitalists that it was based on greed. And that greed is good.

 

[Ecofarm]

Well, someone taught you wrong and I'm willing to bet it was not the capitalists. I could just as easily prove that socialists are based on greed, by pointing out the rich crappy ones.


Capitalism is based on the accumulation of weath (and thus the creation of new wealth), in private hands (not government authority), being the most efficient means of improving society for everyone.

 

[Shekwan]

Well, someone taught you wrong and I'm willing to bet it was not the capitalists.

It was probably this guy:

 

[Syterion]

Well, someone taught you wrong and I'm willing to bet it was not the capitalists.

It is based on accumulation of weath (and thus the creation of new wealth), in private hands (not government authority), being the most efficient means of improving society for everyone.

Well I don't think it's a stretch to say that the accumulation of capital in capitalism today is a huge source of power, since once you have it, it is easier to acquire more capital (since you have more to invest in yourself and others, and the system provides the profits to the owners). And that encourages greed.

 

[Ecofarm]

So, power encourages greed?

Then we better invent a system where noone gets any power (economic, political, social, personal or otherwise). After all, we wouldn't want to encourage greed. Zombie Pol Pot 2012? He'll make sure noone gets crap, except a bowl of rice... and they better keep their mouth shut too; we won't have any greedy people! Such a policy would commonly be referred to as "cutting off your face to spite your face".

We gotta start dis-empowering people.



ps. The argument would not be so hilariously disassembled and mocked if you took some time to understand people who have different ideas. It is possible to examine the impact of global capitalism on various aspects of development without just having a piss-on-capitalism fest.